]]>http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/12/essays-2018-yucai-cup-youth-legislative-essay-contest/feed/0After Citizenship Comes the Opportunity to Sit on Boards and Commissions – 2018 Yucai Cup Essayhttp://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/10/after-citizenship-comes-the-opportunity-to-sit-on-boards-and-commissions-2018-yucai-cup-essay/
http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/10/after-citizenship-comes-the-opportunity-to-sit-on-boards-and-commissions-2018-yucai-cup-essay/#respondTue, 11 Dec 2018 05:27:36 +0000http://www.sdaafe.org/?p=13457by Bennett Hochner, Sage creek High School As the sands of time continue trickling through the hourglass of American history, the United States Constitution and its Amendments have remained the highest law of the land. They delineate the framework for our government, outline the separation of powers, and detail how liberty and justice for its […]

As the sands of time continue trickling through the hourglass of American history, the United States Constitution and its Amendments have remained the highest law of the land. They delineate the framework for our government, outline the separation of powers, and detail how liberty and justice for its citizens shall be safeguarded. The term citizen is not synonymous to person, although the distinction between the two words has apparently been blurred somewhat in recent years. Yet, when looking to the Constitution itself for guidance, as well as other applicable law, the definition for the term citizen is actually quite clear. In short, a citizen is not an alien (or foreign-born non-naturalized individual). Instead, according to long-standing law, a citizen must be a person who was either born in this country or naturalized. For this reason, and as further explained below, if I were a California State Legislator, I could not support California Senate Bill SB-174.

Starting first with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it unequivocally states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (Amend. XIV, sect. 1). Likewise, California’s Government Code Section 241 provides an equally succinct definition of citizen, and sets forth that citizens are “[a]ll persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls” and “[a]ll persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State” (Cal Gov Code § 241). The language in both is straight forward – a citizen must either be born in the United States or naturalized. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Government Code Section 241 discriminates against a person based on his or her nationality, race, religion, age, or socio-economic background. To the contrary, they merely explain that a citizen must have either been born in this country or naturalized.

SB-174 attempts to broaden the definition of citizen to a point that was never contemplated or intended under federal or state law. The Bill is looking to include individuals that merely reside in the State of California, regardless of their actual citizenship. Further, as currently drafted, one must ask, “How does SB-174 define the term reside?” For example, should a person who has entered the country illegally (or legally) and resided in California for three or four weeks be eligible to serve on a local or state board or commission? What about three or four months, or three or four years? Where is the dividing line? SB-174 creates a slippery slope as it not only turns the word citizen on its head, but it also creates ambiguity over what the term reside means.

The rationale behind SB-174 is to increase access to local and state boards and commissions for immigrants and to be more inclusive of people of various backgrounds (Assembly Committee on Judiciary). However, this can be, and already is, accomplished as seen by the makeup of the members of different California boards and commissions. For instance, California’s State Board of Equalization includes ethnically diverse board members (specifically, Diane Harkey, Jerome Horton, Fiona Ma, George Runner, and Betty Yee) (California State Board of Equalization). Another example, among others, is the California Board of Accountancy (California Board of Accountancy). On a local level, the same is true with the joint Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego Transit Corporation, and San Diego Trolley, Inc., which consists of 15 community leaders with diverse backgrounds (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System). Allowing aliens to be eligible to sit on a state or local board or commission (without compensation, since 8 U.S. Code Section 1324a makes it unlawful to “hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien”) is unnecessary since there is no compelling state interest in permitting them to hold these positions when the diverse, multi-background voices of our State’s citizens who are already on these boards (or eligible to be) can and do appreciate their perspectives in addition to others that live in our communities (8 USC § 1324a).

By opposing SB-174, it does not mean that one is against non-native born or non-naturalized individuals. In fact, undisputedly, aliens have been and continue to be contributors to, and an important part of, our society’s fabric. A “no” vote, however, means that although an alien is certainly a person entitled to various rights, based on applicable law, he or she is not a citizen that is eligible to sit on a state or local board or commission until he or she becomes naturalized.

]]>http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/10/after-citizenship-comes-the-opportunity-to-sit-on-boards-and-commissions-2018-yucai-cup-essay/feed/0SB-174: A Step Towards Equality – 2018 Yucai Cup Essayhttp://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/09/sb-174-a-step-towards-equality-2018-yucai-cup-essay/
http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/09/sb-174-a-step-towards-equality-2018-yucai-cup-essay/#commentsMon, 10 Dec 2018 05:56:55 +0000http://www.sdaafe.org/?p=13455by Mabel Song, Canyon Crest Academy The Trump administration’s repeated demand for the fortification of immigration policy has lead to much conflict in today’s political climate. The topic of immigration itself has been converted into somewhat of a sensitive one, where opinions range so drastically that most prefer to not discuss it at all. However, […]

The Trump administration’s repeated demand for the fortification of immigration policy has lead to much conflict in today’s political climate. The topic of immigration itself has been converted into somewhat of a sensitive one, where opinions range so drastically that most prefer to not discuss it at all. However, for the state of California especially, it is a crucial one, as the state harbors around 2 million undocumented immigrants. In order to create a beneficial, prosperous, and efficient government, the state of California must work to assimilate and incorporate immigrants into all aspects of life, including politics. SB-174 makes this possible through the inclusion of immigrants on boards and commissions regardless of status, which would strengthen the government and aid the state of California in reaching its full potential.

The policy that SB-174 would come to replace is extremely outdated, and therefore no longer applicable to a state that has grown increasingly tolerant over the past century. Much of California’s current immigration policy was set in place during the Chinese Exclusion Act during the late 1800s, in an attempt to limit the flow of Chinese immigrants into the country. Americans on the West Coast were especially prone to correlating the deteriorating economy with the increased presence of Chinese workers, not unlike the principal arguments made against undocumented immigrants today. Obviously, most would agree that the Chinese Exclusion Act was a mistake on behalf of the American government, and it goes without saying that an overwhelming majority of Californians now would oppose the practice of such a policy. As Senator Ricardo Lara, the proposer of the bill has said, “It is shocking to read the words of fear and exclusion that are still in California law but belong in history’s trash can. The California Inclusion Act is another step toward utilizing the talents of our diverse population and righting a historical wrong.” There is no reason that California should continue to use law written over a hundred years ago, especially after the ethnic makeup of the state has transformed into one of the most unique and diverse in the country.

A well-established and prosperous government is that which truly reflects and listens to the people. The state of California is home to 10 million immigrants, or a quarter of the foreign-born population in the U.S., something that cannot be simply ignored by legislators. Representation for people from all walks of life is essential, and cannot be attained without the passing of SB-174. The Californian government cannot expect to successfully govern without taking into account the opinions, ideas, and solutions that the immigrant population has to offer. Immigrants are able to provide unique perspectives based on their experiences that native Californians may not share. If SB-174 is not brought to fruition, the barring of undocumented immigrants from public office will cost the Californian legislature valuable insights, thoughts, and policies that otherwise may have had monumentally positive effects on the politics of the state.

The numerous contributions made by the immigrant population have deemed them more than deserving of a role in the government. Many Americans are under the impression that undocumented immigrants steal jobs from deserving Americans, and create a burden on the economy. The actual statistics, however, clearly point to this notion being completely incorrect. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants in California already pay over $3 billion in taxes, an estimated 8% of their income. As taxpayers, these immigrants should be able to have a say in the government that they largely help to fund each year. It is time for the ignorant and premature perception of immigrants as resource thieves to end, so that they can be integrated into the government.

To conclude, SB-174 is a policy that is crucial to the state of California. It is imperative that California continues to progress and grow with more inclusive policies, rather than regress to a xenophobic past. It is simply absurd that the government of California should continue to disregard the views, needs, and perspectives of an entire population, especially one that has contributed so much to the state. The government cannot continue to solely reflect and favor the upper classes, or those with privilege. In fact, the U.S. as a whole should do all it can to incorporate and welcome people from all walks of life, and it is time that California serves as an example to the rest of the nation with the passing of SB-174.

While California boasts the largest economy of any state, it also exploits the most workers of any state (National Human Trafficking Hotline). The $180-billion undocumented labor industry (PRI), a significant chunk of California’s economy, keeps operating costs and consumer prices low with a trend of subminimum-wage compensation, substandard conditions, and threats of deportation (New York Times). Now a new employer—the California government itself—may soon begin exploiting undocumented workers if Senator Ricardo Lara’s SB-174 bill is passed. This bill attempts to be more inclusive of undocumented immigrants by making them, “regardless of citizenship or immigration status, eligible to hold an appointed civil office” (Lara). However, I oppose this bill because it unintentionally institutionalizes exploitation when enacted in conjunction with federal law, which prohibits the compensation of undocumented immigrants for their labor. This failure will become clear upon closer inspection of the bill’s exploitative nature, its lack of solvency, and the existence of a better solution.

SB-174 exploits undocumented immigrants by reaping the benefits of their labor upon appointment to office without ensuring compensation for their services. In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Lara’s office states, “Each board or commission would have to analyze federal law to determine if the appointee can be compensated for the work based on their individual immigration status.” However, under Federal Government Code 1324(A), “it is unlawful for a person or other entity—to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.” Thus, federal law may very well prohibit undocumented immigrants from being compensated for their services in appointed positions, many of which otherwise pay 6-figure salaries, while the lowest-paying position falls at $35,000 per year (CalHR). Are we seriously expecting undocumented appointees to give up their jobs and families’ livelihoods to work full-time government jobs for free? We cannot just appoint them ostensibly for inclusion without considering their financial well-being. Such an economic arrangement would qualify as a dictionary case of exploitation: taking unfair advantage of someone because of a certain vulnerability (in this case, benefiting from someone’s uncompensated labor because of their tenuous immigration status) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If this bill were passed, the California government would join the ranks of thousands of exploitative employers in our state who wrongfully benefit from uncompensated labor.

SB-174 not only exploits undocumented immigrants but also fails to solve the lack of diverse perspectives in California’s law-making machinery. Our great state needs the voices of the undocumented; as Lara asserts, “Their voices should matter when it comes to policies.” But how many can really afford to accept full-time, unpaid civil appointments, especially when considering their obligations to feed their families? It would seem that only the ultra-wealthy could, but would such individuals really represent the diverse voices of the undocumented? While the bill markets itself as infusing diverse perspectives into our legislature, in reality, it looks more like a disingenuous attempt by politicians at appearing more “progressive” and “inclusive.”

If California genuinely cares about the representation of its unrepresented, it ought to pursue a better solution that ensures these individuals’ eligibility for compensation in appointed office. Thus, I propose that the California government advocate for E2 and E3 legal work visas for undocumented immigrants whose knowledge and expertise in appointed office would make them “priority workers” and “persons of exceptional ability”—the conditions for the E-series visas (US State Department). These visas would allow the (now documented) appointees with unique insights to receive fair compensation for their services. Unlike SB-174, this initiative not only protects immigrant appointees from economic exploitation but also incorporates their underrepresented voices into our state’s “hundreds of boards and commissions” (Lara).

As philosopher Immanuel Kant postulates, we ought to treat people as “ends in themselves” and not as “means to an end” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In other words, we need to respect others as dignified beings and not take advantage of them for our own agendas. In this case of SB-174, we cannot treat undocumented immigrants and their ineligibility for compensation as merely a means of achieving the ends of free labor and a better-informed California. Nor can we mask our state’s widespread economic exploitation of undocumented workers by further exploiting their vulnerabilities under SB-174 and its superficial slogans of “inclusion” and “diversity.” We need to treat undocumented immigrants as ends in themselves—enacting sincere legislation that ensures they are rightfully compensated for their labor and knowledge just like anybody else.

As a Californian, I applaud Senator Lara for recognizing the existence of a legitimate problem in our state’s lack of undocumented voices in government. But, because of the bill’s lack of compensation and the resultant possibility of institutionalized exploitation, my conscience prevents me from supporting SB-174.

“California’s Undocumented Workers Help the Economy Grow – but May Pay the Cost.” Public Radio International, PRI, www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-06/californias-undocumented-workers-help-grow-economy-theres-cost.

“Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, www.travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/employment-based-immigrant-visas.html.

“Employers Exploit Unauthorized Immigrants to Keep Wages Low” The New York Times, The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/03/is-immigration-really-a-problem-in-the-us/employers-exploit-unauthorized-immigrants-to-keep-wages-low.

]]>http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/06/sb-174-inclusion-or-exploitation-2018-yucai-cup-essay/feed/0SB 174: Affirmative – 2018 Yucai Cup Essayhttp://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/04/sb-174-affirmative-2018-yucai-cup-essay/
http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/04/sb-174-affirmative-2018-yucai-cup-essay/#respondWed, 05 Dec 2018 06:55:37 +0000http://www.sdaafe.org/?p=13443SB 174: Affirmative by Andrew Gao, Canyon Crest Academy California has long been regarded as one of the most diverse and multicultural states in the United States, and even in the entire world. People from all walks of life live, work, play, and learn here in the Golden state, which is truly a “golden” example […]

California has long been regarded as one of the most diverse and multicultural states in the United States, and even in the entire world. People from all walks of life live, work, play, and learn here in the Golden state, which is truly a “golden” example of the American dream. However, despite the advances the state has made in equality and freedom, one thing still stands in the way of total inclusion: the fact that only U.S. citizens who are residents of California may serve on civil boards and commissions. A new bill, SB 174, dubbed the California Inclusion Act, would remove that barrier, and allow all of California’s unique and different voices to be heard and acted upon, help California take advantage of the wide range of talents and skills possessed by non-citizens, and eradicate a centuries-old law that was intended to oppress Chinese immigrants, and foreigners in general.

Firstly, as the most populated state in America, and arguably the most diverse, California is home to scores of distinct beliefs, opinions, and situations. For example, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, there are more than 10 million immigrants residing in the state and half of children in California have at least one immigrant parent. As such, in order for California to effectively serve its people, it needs to lift the strict restrictions currently in place, so non-citizens can be more represented and supported in California’s civil offices. They need to have their opinions heard on issues pertaining to them, like safety and healthcare. California already has a vast system in place to support the rights and lives of immigrants, such as healthcare for children, college grants, driver’s licenses, and more. Allowing immigrants to serve on boards and commissions is simply a natural next step.

Likewise, SB 174 will provide many benefits to the state since there are many qualified men and women who could make a tremendous impact on their communities, but cannot due to lack of citizenship. Currently, to serve on the Board of Directors of a District Agricultural Association, the Contractors State License Board, the State Board of Food and Agriculture, and many other boards and commissions, one must be a U.S. citizen. However, limiting the positions soly to citizens results in the loss of many important perspectives and experiences. For example, according to Pew Research Center, although unauthorized immigrant workers only comprise 5% of the American civilian labor force, they represent 15% of construction workers. Additionally, an analysis of the United States Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey reveals that in the last 15 years, illegal immigrants accounted for about half of workers in crop agriculture. The boards listed above could greatly benefit from the knowledge and viewpoints of these workers and their families.

Finally, implementing SB 174 would end a law from 1872 that was created due to anti-Chinese sentiment at the time. Effectively, the law denied them a voice in government and society, completely ignoring the huge contributions they had made, for instance the building of the transcontinental railroads. Sadly, nearly 150 years later, non-citizens are still excluded from California’s boards, commissions and other agencies, even though immigrants, legal and illegal, have always had large impacts on California’s culture, society, and economy. From Chinese miners in the 19th century, to Mexican migrant workers in the 20th, to today’s immigrants who are the backbone of many of California’s key industries, the truth is that California would not be where it is today, as the world’s 5th largest economy (United States Department of Commerce 2018), without the hard work of non-citizens throughout California’s history. SB 174 will change this ancient and outdated law, and give everyone an opportunity to serve in Californian agencies. While some argue that immigrants who are not citizens cannot be trusted to act in California’s interests, this point of contention is invalid since the person would still have to be a resident of California and be appointed, which is significant because whatever decision the person makes will affect them too and they will also have been carefully selected for the position. Moreover, immigrants make up around one fourth of the total population of California, which means that millions of Californians don’t have the right to work in state agencies. Does this seem inclusive and representative of California’s diverse populace?

To sum it up, SB 174 is another momentous step towards equality in California. It will grant everyone, no matter their immigration status, the ability to serve on state boards and commissions, unlock a wealth of expertise in multiple areas that was previously inaccessible, and lift a longstanding regulation formed out of resentment and prejudice. Contact your local congressperson and senator now and ask them to support SB 174!

Corcoran, Kieran. “California’s Economy Is Now the 5th-Biggest in the World, and Has Overtaken the United Kingdom.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 5 May 2018, www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th-in-the-world-beating-the-uk-2018-5.

“Immigration Policy and Its Possible Effects on U.S. Agriculture.” USDA ERS – Sharing the Economic Burden: Who Pays for WIC’s Infant Formula, www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012-june/immigration-policy.aspx.

]]>http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/04/sb-174-affirmative-2018-yucai-cup-essay/feed/0Consequences of California SB 174 – 2018 Yucai Cup Essayhttp://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/01/consequences-california-sb-174-2018-yucai-cup-essay/
http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/01/consequences-california-sb-174-2018-yucai-cup-essay/#commentsSun, 02 Dec 2018 03:00:03 +0000http://www.sdaafe.org/?p=13439Consequences of California SB 174 by Alan Ding, Escondido Charter High School California State Senator Ricardo Lara introduced California Senate Bill SB 174 to allow any resident of the state over eighteen years of age to be able to hold an appointed civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The highlight of the bill […]

California State Senator Ricardo Lara introduced California Senate Bill SB 174 to allow any resident of the state over eighteen years of age to be able to hold an appointed civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The highlight of the bill is to grant illegal immigrants eligibility to serve on all state and local boards and commissions. As a lawmaker, I would oppose SB 174 because of its unrealistic approach to solving the immigration issue and the fact that it would create more tension between California and the Federal government over immigration policies.

First of all, if this bill were passed, Senator Lara admits, “each board or commission would have to analyze federal law to determine if the appointee could be compensated for the work he or she contributed based on their individual immigration status” (Luna). The status of each individual would have to be examined, which would make more work and worsen the economic burden of the government.

Secondly, bills like SB 174 fit into a larger agenda of broadening all benefits to all illegal immigrants. Senator Lara’s plan is part of a bigger picture to grant all illegal immigrants more freedom and benefits (Luna). The bill would open a Pandora’s Box. Initially it would provide illegal immigrants eligibility to hold appointed civil offices, opening more doors for illegal immigrants to occupy civil offices in other categories, which may eventually exceed most people’s expectation and control.

Thirdly, like any policy favorable to illegal immigrants, SB 174 would send a signal to our Central American neighbors that our nation is opening up her arms to receive them. Instead of helping out the illegal immigrants residing in the United States, the bill would attract more aliens to cross the border.

Furthermore, the United States indeed has a large immigrant population that provides a lot of menial labors in this country. Laws should focus on employers to be held more accountable while hiring rather than providing illegal immigrants with more benefits. One example of an effort to help employers follow the law is the employer sanctions law. Its purpose is to make sure employers only hire people who can legally work in the United States. Employers have to verify the identity and employment authorization of each empolyee. At the same time, the law prohibits discrimination against any individuals who are able to work legally, regardless of immigration status and nationality. (“Why Employers”). This makes it fairer for law-abiding business owners and employees and brings new immigrants into the tax base. Enforcing employment laws would make it harder to be an illegal immigrant and make both employers and employees more accountable.

Finally, this bill would further antagonize the Federal government on the issue of immigration at a time when “the state is locked in a broader legal battle with the Trump administration over state immigration laws and his call for mass deportations” (Ulloa). The Constitution gives the Federal government supreme authority over immigration. California needs to respect that; otherwise it violates the Constitution.

In summary, we should work more on finding solutions that help everyone, like legalizing immigrants to create equality and fairness. Immigrants play a huge role in our society. They actually pay taxes, and they do the jobs that no one wants to do but are important to our economy. We should instead focus on a more realistic approach to deal with immigrants that targets employers and keeps people accountable. That is why I would oppose SB 174.

Works Cited

Editorials. “In Rejecting U.S. Immigration Law, California Has A Role Model: The

]]>http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/12/01/consequences-california-sb-174-2018-yucai-cup-essay/feed/1The Illegal but Essential Workers – 2018 Yucai Cup Essayhttp://www.sdaafe.org/2018/11/29/illegal-essential-workers-2018-yucai-cup-essay/
http://www.sdaafe.org/2018/11/29/illegal-essential-workers-2018-yucai-cup-essay/#respondFri, 30 Nov 2018 05:20:31 +0000http://www.sdaafe.org/?p=13437The Illegal but Essential Workers by Sean Cai, Scripps Ranch High School Under the table of massive Californian growth, within the perception of the Western Economic Powerhouse, is the mass of the undocumented, who are central to economic growth in the state and fill the jobs required to drive economic growth. Indeed, in a time of […]

Under the table of massive Californian growth, within the perception of the Western Economic Powerhouse, is the mass of the undocumented, who are central to economic growth in the state and fill the jobs required to drive economic growth. Indeed, in a time of questionable US foreign immigration policy, California legislators argue over this economic workforce paid under the table, responsible for much Californian prosperity. There is an abundant need for boosting California’s economic growth, preventing undocumented worker abuses, and guaranteeing the safety of migrant children with the enactment of California Senate Bill SB-174.

California’s economic growth may be top in the US, but with high economy comes high maintenance. According to the Center of Migration Studies, most immigrants (79%) coming to California are of working age and come with high levels of education- especially those from Asia, who make up 58% of all immigrants. Despite lower incomes, about as many immigrants were in the work force compared to citizens, showing their serious resolve to settle down in the US. However, California’s immigrant population has slowed from increases of 37% in the 1990s to 8%, likely due to the Trump Administration’s arbitrary use of ICE to drive down immigration, legal and illegal. This is crucial as a report from Public Policy Institute of California reveals that California needs 1.1 million more workers with bachelor’s degrees by 2030 to keep up with economic demand. By granting citizenship to children of transient aliens, California creates a desperately needed incentive to regain educated immigration levels to provide a long-term solution for the lack of educated workers. Additionally, The Public Policy Institute of California posit that boosting graduation rates for those already in college will be the most effective tool to fill the gap but enrolling more students is also imperative. This is especially worrying, as a study from UCLA researcher Patricia Gandara finds 70 percent of respondents said that the academic results of immigrant students dropped this year because of fear relating to undocumentation. The challenges immigrant children face hampers their academic progress especially considering a national policy immigration disincentive. California offers many higher education opportunities and a strong labor market for highly educated workers that need only be met by educated workers, and the long-term problem of sustaining educated workers comes with the challenge of creating more high-performing students undisturbed by imprudent immigration policy.

Undocumented migrant workers are a major force for filling labor but are often vulnerable to abusive employers, lacking authoritative voice. According to Khouri of the Los Angeles Times, unpaid wage abuse towards undocumented immigrants has grown in the rise of governmental ICE policy. Workers are at their employer’s mercy as they cannot report workplace violation without fear of legal punishment. The result is an environment of workers paid very much under the state’s minimum wage and denied workplace rights. As ICE ramps up its enforcement under new governmental policies, more worksite abuse and more undocumented fear will be perpetuated to the detriment of immigrant children important to occupy future educated jobs and to the harm of the immigrants working welfare. Gandara of UCLA also extends that ninety percent of school principals said they’d observed psychological problems in their immigrant students, clear sign of the tremendous fear imposed on immigrant communities. In response to this, the government of the state of California has already taken measures to improve labor standards for vulnerable immigrant workers present in the state with measures like such as AB 263 (2013) and SB 666 (2013). These measures, enacted between 2013 and 2017, have been effective thus far, but the recent actions of anti-immigration national policy have proven them ineffective against employers who have been given more leverage by increased ICE activity to deprive undocumented immigrants of their basic human rights. To counter this, California must enact this bill, which allows for undocumented workers to gain a governmental voice by lieu of election of civil office, eliminating the perpetual fear that the abusive employer wields all legal power, and thus giving the workers a voice from which they begin to bargain for their rights. The savoir vivre demanded by working immigrants is answered by the current political climate with human rights abuses, of which only the voice of a leader unsuppressed by fear of outright arrest can resolve.

The situation is very much like Caesar Chavez’s renowned transformation of migrant worker rights, except that to produce leaders requires the populace to allow leaders like Chavez to rise above the fear of deportation. In this case, however, the rising demand for a long-term solution of Californian educated workers slowly dwindling coupled with the untapped potential of an immigrant group steeped into poverty-level wages advocates for the enactment of this bill promoting the overall diversity and long-term prosperity of the State of California.

Sources Cited

Public Policy Institute of California, 16, (Trusted Research Institute in California), “Immigrants in California”, Public Policy Institute of California, 2016, http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/, 8-29-2018

Johnson, Hans, 2017, (Researcher at Public Policy Institute of California), “Meeting California’s Need for College Graduates: A Regional Perspective”, Public Policy Institute of California, June 2017, http://www.ppic.org/publication/meeting-californias-need-for-college-graduates-a-regional-perspective/, 8-29-2018

Khouri, Andrew, 18, (Writer for the LATimes), “More workers say their bosses are threatening to have them deported”, latimes, 1-2-2018, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-immigration-retaliation-20180102-story.html#, 8-29-2018

Hamilton, Valerie, 17, (Writer for Public Radio International), “California’s undocumented workers help the economy grow – but may pay the cost”, Public Radio International, 3-6-2017, https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-06/californias-undocumented-workers-help-grow-economy-theres-cost, 8-29-2018